Appeal: direct answer
From DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?.
- #8741:19:00upheld Jay Dyer epainos: direct answer (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“By comparison of the systems in terms of the internal critique to see which systems can give an account for the basic presuppositions of knowledge, epistemology, and metaphysics.”
Diogenes: This answers plainly the question Trent pressed twice — what breaks the symmetry between rival presuppositions — by naming a mechanism, internal critique, rather than asserting his system is true.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay held throughout that adjudication between rival theological systems is a comparison of paradigms via internal critique (which system can account for the presuppositions of knowledge, ethics, metaphysics) rather than a natural-theology-style argument from evidence, and this answer restates and applies that same standing method to the question asked. The audience question asked how one presupposed system is justified over another, and Jay answers plainly by naming a mechanism (internal critique for accounting for knowledge's presuppositions) rather than deflecting or simply asserting his system is true by fiat.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Asked point-blank "How do you justify one presupposed system over another?", Jay gives a direct, substantive answer — comparison via internal critique of which system can account for the presuppositions of knowledge, ethics, and metaphysics — rather than deflecting the question, and this matches the method he had already laid out earlier in the debate.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's standing position throughout is that rival presuppositions are adjudicated by internal-critique/transcendental comparison rather than neutral evidence; this answer names that mechanism plainly in response to a question squarely on point, so it is a direct answer rather than a dodge or bare assertion. The audience question explicitly asked how one presupposed system is justified over another, and Jay answers directly by naming a method — internal critique of which system can account for the preconditions of knowledge — rather than merely asserting his system is true; this is consistent with and completes the "comparison of paradigms" framework he had already begun sketching in cross-examination.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.